BIBB vs PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY

sampling.”

In response to the RFPD 1 and 2, which seek all documents identified in response to the form and special interrogatories, Defendant stated that it will produce a copy of the policy. Plaintiff contends the corresponding interrogatories required Defendant to identify more than just the insurance policy and once Defendant has been ordered to provide further responses to the form and special interrogatories, Defendant should also be ordered to provide corresponding further responses here.

RFPD 3 seeks the policy, including all renewals and prior policies since it was first issued, but Defendant responded only that it will produce a copy of the policy. Plaintiff contends Defendant’s response is not Code compliant because it did not object or state it lacks the ability to comply, but also did not state that it will or has complied with this request in full.

RFPD 4 through 10 seek documents regarding the claim file, policy, Plaintiff, and relevant communications. In response, Defendant stated:

“Objection; given the pendency of Defendant’s investigation, this discovery is so unduly burdensome as to constitute oppression. It also violates Defendant’s right to privacy in the conduct of investigations authorized by the California Insurance Code. It also seeks privileged information arising from Defendant’s protected activity in furtherance of Defendant’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue. It also violates the attorney-client and work product privileges.”

(Separate Statement at pp. 4-7.)

Plaintiff argues the claim file is discoverable in an insurance bad faith case. (See e.g. 2,022 Ranch, L.L.C. v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1396.) Plaintiff also contends the undue burden objections lack merit because the claim file will not be large and the information sought is not protected by a right to privacy. Further, if there are any privileged documents, Defendant can produce nonprivileged documents and also produce a corresponding privilege log. As to the documents that refer to the policy, Plaintiff contends the documents are subject to production. (See Freeman v. Allstate Life Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 2001) 253 F3d 533, 537 (applying California law).)

RFPD 11 seeks all documents that reflect any policy, practice, and/or procedure of developing claims handling and/or adjusters’ manuals, guidelines, or any other

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017830: BIBB vs PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION 06/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 54

documents used to instruct personnel on the claims handling and/or adjustment process, including additions, deletions, and other revisions from previous versions of any such material.

RFPD 14 seeks all claims manuals or training manuals used by Defendant since January 1, 2020 in connection with first party claims.

RFPD 15 seeks all claims manuals or training manuals used by Defendant since January 1, 2020 in connection with claims involving first party insurance claims involving theft of an automobile or watercraft.

RFPD 16 seeks all documents regarding the policy, practice and procedure of handling first party insurance claims involving theft of an automobile or watercraft.

Defendant provided the same response as noted above.

Plaintiff contends these requests seek documents that are often referred to as “claim manuals.” California Courts have recognized that insurance claims manuals are discoverable and admissible at trial. (See Glenfed Development Corp v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117-1119; Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1978) 21 Cal.3d 910, 923, fn. 8.)

Finally, RFPD 19 seeks all documents reflecting the mailing of any documents Defendant claims were mailed to Plaintiff. Defendant provide the same response. Plaintiff argues this request seeks the evidence Defendant keeps regarding the mailing of documents to Plaintiff, and they are not subject to a right of privacy or privileged.

Defendant has filed an opposition, which is mostly comprised of an irrelevant discussion of whether this action is subject to a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 – a motion that has not been filed by Defendant. (Opposition at pp. 3-7.) Defendant seems to concede the irrelevance of this entire discussion via the conclusion, which states “All of which is a compelling argument for an Anti-SLAPP motion under C.C.P. §425.16. Which this is not. This is an opposition to discovery enforcement motions.” (Opposition at 8:2-3.)

Apart from this wholly inapposite discussion of section 425.16 standards, and whether or not such a motion would succeed, Defendant does not set forth any sound legal reasoning that would justify its refusal to respond to the discovery and even submits that it will supplement its responses. (Opposition at 2:5-6.) Having failed to set forth any legal authority justifying its objections and agreeing to supplement, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED in its entirety.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017830: BIBB vs PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION 06/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 54

Defendant shall serve verified further responses to the subject discovery no later than June 19, 2025, unless the parties mutually agree in writing upon a later date.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,935 is GRANTED, but in the reduced amount of $1,210 (representing two hours of attorney time at the rate of $575 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee). Sanctions to be paid no later than July 5, 2025, and, if not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D).Plaintiff is ordered to notify Defendant immediately of the tentative ruling system and the manner to request a hearing. If Plaintiff is unable to contact Defendant prior to hearing, Plaintiff is ordered to appear at the hearing.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017830: BIBB vs PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION 06/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 54

requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.